marathag
Banned
Even at combat at 100 yards between one Platoon with SKS vs another with M1, my money is on Garand. They are just that much easier to hit a helmet size target at 100, repeatedly.
The lesser recoil.of the SKS for follow up shots is thrown away bybthe terrible accuracy
Deleted member 1487
In combat trying to go for head shots at 100 yards is less valuable than being able to put out a higher volume of fire to suppress the enemy.
marathag
Banned
8 round clip vs 10 round stripper really won't move the volume of fire much from one to the other.
Chinese ammo bandoliers had 12,10 round strippers.
US used a pair of bandoliers with six en-block clips each in addition to the 10 clip belt. That's 184 rounds
Deleted member 1487
The SKS could be topped off, while the ammo weighed so much less that the SKS gunner had twice the ammo of the Garand gunner.
Official Garand rifle load was around 100 rounds, riflemen probably carried more if they could, same with Russian, Chinese, and Vietnamese troops.
BTW the Chinese bandolier carried 200 rounds:
Amazon.com : Original Chinese PLA SKS Rifle 7.62mm Type 56 Chest Rig Bandolier Ammo Pouch 10 Pockets : Sports & Outdoors
Amazon.com : Original Chinese PLA SKS Rifle 7.62mm Type 56 Chest Rig Bandolier Ammo Pouch 10 Pockets : Sports & Outdoors
www.amazon.com
These are unimportant and inconsequential differences. They are both clip-fed battle rifles. There is no practical difference in weight of fire.
Deleted member 1487
25% more ammo per full clip, plus ability to reload without having to first burn off the rest of the clip is a pretty significant advantage, especially when you can carry nearly twice the ammo per weight and the rifle is lighter on top of that, plus recoil is more manageable.
Actually only 20%, but two shots is not a significant difference.
You do know that it is possible to unload a Garand, right? You pull the partially used clip out and put a fresh one in.
That doesn't make a difference unless you actually carry twice the ammo, and nobody is giving an infantryman 400 rounds of M43 in clips. US standard load was a cartridge belt with 10 x 8 rounds and up to two bandoliers, each with 6 x 8 rounds, plus one clip in the rifle, for 184 rounds for troops anticipating heavy combat.
The Simonov weighs 8.5 lbs compared to a Garand at 9.5 lbs. Neither rifle could be considered light and handy.
marathag
Banned
8 round clip vs 10 round stripper really won't move the volume of fire much from one to the other.
Chinese ammo bandoliers had 12,10 round strippers.
US used a pair of bandoliers with six en-block clips each in addition to the 10 clip belt. That's 184 rounds
Deleted member 1487
10/8=125%. 10 is 25% more than 8 because it is 2 extra beyond 8.
Extra steps. I said top off not have to unload and then use a fresh clip.
The standard Garand ammo load was 80-128 bullets:
How many rounds of ammunition did an infantry rifleman carry in WWII? How accessible was additional ammo during battle? How common was ru...
Answer (1 of 9): Assuming 1 cartridge belt, 1 bandolier, and 1 clip in the M1 Garand or M1903 for a common US riflemen, between 88 and 136 rounds. The initial combat load was intended to be carried in the M1923 Cartridge Belt that had 10 pockets. Each pocket could carry 1 en bloc clip with 8 rou...
A SKS operator carried at least 200.
It is if the other fellas rifle just went ping while yours goes bang.
Deleted member 1487
Per the link the belt could carry 200 rounds. Do you have a source about how much the Chinese carried vs. the Russians?
As to US loads:
U.S. Army & Marine Ammo Loads During WWII
The following is what a typical ammo load for U.S. squads during World War II would have looked like. There was likely great variance between what was actually carried into battle due to a variety of factors, so this is more of a general picture than exactly what all units carried in practice...
www.battleorder.org
That's really heavy for ammo, especially with a rifle that is already a pound heavier, plus it's less than the Chinese ammo belt could carry.
If you have a Simonov, you have to take cartridges out of a clip before you can put them in the gun. Ammunition comes packed in clips or belts so troops should not be handling loose rounds.
This isn't how the real world works.
marathag
Banned
belt and two bandoleir if heavy fighting was expected, along with a couple grenades, othereise the belt, with bandoleirs nearby with the other ammo.
Now in the Central Highlands, my Uncle said the VC were really light on ammo, for SKS or AK
SKS is charger fed just as an Enfield or Mauser. Garand was clip fed. M14 and M16 magazines were similarly charger fed.
Steyer and Berthier of early 20th C were similarly clip fed. Clip fed went out out of fashion with replaceable magazines
Deleted member 1487
No reason you couldn't have a few loose rounds pre-battle to top off as needed.
13.6 pounds for 176 rounds plus 1 extra pound for the heavier rifle. 13.6+9.5 pounds for the rifle=23.1 lbs without bayonet (AFAIK).
Meanwhile 200 rounds of loose 7.62x39 was about 7.5 lbs (1000 rounds was 17.2kg, so if you do the math that is about what it works out to). Let's say for the sake of argument with the bandolier and stripper clips it's 8.5 pounds, exactly the same as the SKS. 17 pounds for 200 rounds + rifle with bayonet.
For a 2nd bandolier jumped ammo up to 400 rounds it's another 8.5 pounds, so 25.5 pounds total.
The Garand double load then would be 352 rounds and 36.7 pounds.
What years? Might have been a situation thing, I've read that early on as the first SKS's and AKs were arriving ammo was relatively scarce.
Last edited by a moderator:
marathag
Banned
Two tours, starting in '65, I think. He did not like the new M16, no matter that you could carry more ammo to make it jam sooner. He traded for a M1 Carbine, that was reliable and effective enough. He still thought the best weapon they had was the Motorola Radio considering most of what they did was move around till the VC shot at them. Then call in Arty and Airstrikes.
Said that a nearby ArcLight that wasn't even danger close was the scariest thing he ever experienced.
Said that a nearby ArcLight that wasn't even danger close was the scariest thing he ever experienced.
Deleted member 1487
Gotcha, yeah it was early in the war that the AK47 was a rarity and SKS were also just showing up. From what I recall the VC and NVA were still mostly using Japanese and French weapons until around '68. That would explain the lack of 7.62x39 ammo.
Also not surprising about the early M16s. Just read the book 'Misfire' about it's introduction and the huge problems that resulted because of basically sabotage by the army to try and kill it's introduction.
What isn't danger close for Arclight???? I honestly don't know how the NVA kept fighting in the face of near certain death from that.
Some random remarks. M1Garand can be topped off, too. At 100 m, whether a bullet will hit or miss is a function of a shooter, not of SKS or M1 Garand; at 500 m the situation will favor M1 Garand. SKS was reasonable accurate, far more accurate than AK-47 (a reasson why Chinese invested into a full-auto offspring of SKS). SKS can be fed wia striper clips. M1 Garand on the video posted above is outfitted with a sizable muzzle brake that helps with recoil, while the ww2 issue rifles were without the muzzle brake.